Boxer’s blog is running hot as Derek expounds on his beliefs combining evolution and Christianty. (Links below.) I don’t believe I’ll get a good chance to say what needs to be said there, hence this post. But history first, a history of arguably the greatest heresy and apostasy to ever be allowed inside the Church.
Back in the day, the day Charles Darwin went public, the biological cell was known to be a soap bubble full of water and a little black dot called the nucleus. Darwin’s idea that that came into existence through trial and error was therefore plausible, and science had not yet advanced enough to refute him.
At the same time, many Church leaders were enamored of science, believing that science spoke to the careful design of a Creator. That was appropriate; I myself am Christian in large part because reason and Nature speak to His existence and glory. Science had even been invented by Christians; no other religion suggested that reality was based on natural laws given by a deity. Either there was no God or Nature was itself God or Zeus did as he wished.
So, when the idea came along that science might explain how God isn’t needed to explain the existence of life, Christian leaders in the Enlightenment faced a dilemma. Should they follow where the science led, and doubt God’s claim to be our Creator? Or should they resort to faith that given time, as we learned more, Darwinism would be debunked?
They chose to be faithless.
They–pastors, writers, theologians and preachers–deliberately let the lie of evolution into the Church because of fear that science would prove them wrong instead of trusting that science would prove God correct. They twisted God’s authorship into the preposterous idea that God intentionally made quadrillions of mistakes when bringing life into existence in order to validate the unbelief of the Godless. Their own unbelief in many cases, as things turned out.
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” -Richard Dawkins
Now that science has advanced to the point where we know the cell is not a “soap bubble full of water” but a factory complex to the subatomic level, science ought to have swiftly and quietly expelled the theory of evolution.
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” -Darwin
Atheists recognized the debunking of Darwinism as the greatest, most horrible achievement of science: the proof by counterexample that a Creator God is real and did indeed create life on Earth. They promptly began twisting evolution into a religion. They were assisted by many so-called defenders of the faith, who loved the idea of human Enlightenment more than the God they preached on Sunday morning.
“The strength of atheism is not its arguments, but its alternatives.” -GunnerQ
The theory of evolution has not advanced beyond Darwin’s finches, which we now recognize as microevolution–genetic variation within a species. Macroevolution, variation between species, has never been observed, demonstrated or proven to have occurred… in fact, no possible path between any two species has ever been suggested.
Instead, evolution became evolutionary psychology. Atheists have grown weary and worried against the swelling tide of objective evidence and thus, have seen fit to lower their burden of proof from observation & repeatable experimentation to fairy tales for adults.
May God damn those faithless, humanist clergy who allowed this failed theory and linchpin of apostasy to take root in the Church.
Which brings me to Derek. I realize my opinions often come across bluntly and I generally mean them that way, but here I honestly wish Derek the best. He’s trapped in the lie of evolutionary psychology and I would see him freed to have the faith in God the Creator that the clergy he trusts obviously don’t. My comments are in quotes, his not.
“God claims to be our Creator”
Evolution is not an origin-of-life theory: it is unrelated to creation. Christian claims about God do not conflict with natural selection and “random” mutation.
Come on, now. Darwin did not pull the book title The Origin Of Species out of a hat. Evolution is an origin-of-life story that makes God unnecessary. That’s the only reason it is still believed by anybody at all… as Richard Dawkins admitted.
It is not possible to be both Christian and evolutionist. They are competing, mutually exclusive, mutually hostile religions.
“…nowhere in Scripture does God behave randomly…”
Nature is full of chance events. Randomness is everywhere, from the quantum to astronomical level. I suspect you are unintentionally equivocating.
Randomness is everywhere but underneath it is a well-ordered reality of natural laws. Those natural laws are completely incapable of explaining a materialist origin of life as we know it. The probabilities, as even the evolutionists admit, are incredibly small. I see they’ve given up on the Multiverse hand-wave in favor of the it’s-not-actually-random-at-all handwave, whereas a real scientist would notice that the probability of the alternative hypothesis–God the Creator–is near-unity as a direct consequence.
God does not behave indiscriminately, unconsciously, or unintentionally (randomly), but intentionally and consciously (non-randomly) uses randomness and chance.
That’s just stupid. The Almighty does not commit nonrandom acts of randomness… certainly not in order to give atheists valid reason to deny Him. The debunking of evolution actually leads us closer to His original claim of six-day Creation, not farther.
It is my sincere, honest belief that the chicken came first, not the egg, because God created the chicken in one single action and chicken eggs don’t incubate themselves. Not only did God not blunder through epochs of failures to make the chicken, but the fossil record proves that the Almighty did not behave so incompetently.
Thus, science glorifies God. It does not give us excuses with which to deny Him. Have faith, Derek. Have faith that a hundred million professional evolutionists are wrong and Christ Jesus is right, lest you repeat the Church’s faithlessness that let the evolutionist snake inside the Church in the first place.
“Is there any argument one could possibly make that would convince you that women are not evolved to value reproduction?”
Of course! Scientific inquiry only works if we can fully pursue an hypothesis and also be willing to accept its negation. Anyone can publish their own competing analysis.
God already has: Original Sin. Women rebelling against male authority is a microcosm of humanity rebelling against God. God even says as much in Scripture. Any well-read Christian ought to recognize the incompatibility between the Fall and “human nature perfected via natural selection”.
Evolution predicts that if there’s one single thing that women will naturally get right, it’s breeding and raising healthy children. One look at tabloid headlines, not to mention the existence and popularity of contraception, is sufficient to debunk that.
But because atheists NEED evolution to be true, they persist in hand-waving away even the most blatant of counterexamples.
It’s a matter of established science that mutations occur as a normal course of life and that these are passed to children during reproduction.
“No, and the term “matter of established science” is the giveaway. Any science that is not permitted to be questioned can be safely presumed faulty. You know… you have to know, if you are trying to straddle creation and evolution simultaneously… that the science of evolution is not settled at all.”
When I say “matter of established science” I mean “earth is round” level of established. I’m not talking about the “Everyone agrees with us!! No, don’t look over there! [points gun at your head]” level of established. If you deny that mutations occur and are passed on to children, that’s “earth is flat” level of denial.
This is disingenuous. Atheists have begun using the term “matter of established science” as a way to circle the wagons and prevent deserters from wandering off the atheist plantation. Hence my taking exception to Derek’s usage of the term.
Do genetic defects happen? Of course. Do potentially beneficial mutations happen? No. Humanity is not evolving. Neither is any other species. Fossil record for those wanting an example but let’s be honest, either of us could be holding smoking-gun evidence and the other would not be convinced.
That’s because this is a religious debate, not a science debate. Science cannot directly prove anything about the supernatural because its purpose is unearthing natural laws. If it could then most scientists would quit and become witch doctors but happily, what cannot be observed is indisputably beyond the boundaries of observation & experimentation, the scientific method. (Science can, and has, proven that life is impossibly unlikely without a supernatural cause.)
If no evidence will convince either of us then why am I writing this? To point out that evolution is the atheist excuse for unbelief in God, which is poison to faith in God… even though many in the Church claim the two can coexist, so they can have a convenient backdoor in case of apostasy.
“You know… you have to know, if you are trying to straddle creation and evolution simultaneously… that the science of evolution is not settled at all.”
Of course I know. I’m a proponent of intelligent design and have written a number of articles on the topic. I appreciate your take on it on your blog as well. You won’t see me arguing for evolution at the very macro levels. It is often useful to accept it for sake of argument.
Wish granted. Pick a team, Derek. Are humans flawed by Original Sin or paragons of Natural Selection? It can’t be both because modern woman, the most liberated-to-follow-her-natural-instincts woman since the fall of the Roman Empire, is toxic, dysgenic trash.
I understand how r/K theory and related evopsych lies can be attractive. We live in a materialist world saturated and indoctrinated by militant atheists who think the Bible is at long last, only a couple nudges away from the dustbin of history.
Are there specific topics in evolutionary psychology I can address, that would strengthen your faith? I’ll address them. I retired from debating evolution in frustration that this Godless generation always wants another sign but I’ll do it for a Christian brother.
I’ll even teach you mysticism, if it would help you see the lies for what they are.
Have faith. God is true, His claim of Creation has been tested and proven, and it will be proven time and again until His return, when evolutionists will stop with their lies, cover their ears to drown out His voice and rush, screaming, to kill God again before He claims copyright upon humanity.